Alternative Transportation Fuels and Vehicle Technologies
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Alternative Transportation Fuels and Vehicle Technologies Challenges and Opportunities A Report of the CSIS Energy and National Security Program, CSIS Global Strategy Institute, and National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1800 K Street NW | Washington, DC 20006 auth0rs Tel: (202) 887-0200 | Fax: (202) 775-3199 E-mail: [email protected] | Web: www.csis.org Douglas Arent Frank A. Verrastro Jennifer L. Bovair Erik R. Peterson foreword Senator Richard G. Lugar contributors Sarah O. Ladislaw David Pumphrey August 2009 ISBN 978-0-89206-542-4 Ë|xHSKITCy065424zv*:+:!:+:! Alternative Transportation Fuels and Vehicle Technologies Challenges and Opportunities A Report of the CSIS Energy and National Security Program, CSIS Global Strategy Institute, and National Renewable Energy Laboratory auth0rs Douglas Arent Frank A. Verrastro Jennifer L. Bovair Erik R. Peterson foreword Senator Richard G. Lugar contributors Sarah O. Ladislaw David Pumphrey August 2009 About CSIS In an era of ever-changing global opportunities and challenges, the Center for Strategic and Inter- national Studies (CSIS) provides strategic insights and practical policy solutions to decisionmak- ers. CSIS conducts research and analysis and develops policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change. Founded by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke at the height of the Cold War, CSIS was dedicated to the simple but urgent goal of finding ways for America to survive as a nation and prosper as a people. Since 1962, CSIS has grown to become one of the world’s preeminent public policy institutions. Today, CSIS is a bipartisan, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. More than 220 full-time staff and a large network of affiliated scholars focus their expertise on defense and security; on the world’s regions and the unique challenges inherent to them; and on the issues that know no boundary in an increasingly connected world. Former U.S. senator Sam Nunn became chairman of the CSIS Board of Trustees in 1999, and John J. Hamre has led CSIS as its president and chief executive officer since 2000. CSIS does not take specific policy positions; accordingly, all views expressed in this publica- tion should be understood to be solely those of the author(s). About NREL The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is the nation’s primary laboratory for renew- able energy and energy efficiency research and development. NREL’s mission is to advance the Department of Energy’s (DOE) and our nation’s energy goals. Scientific research focuses on the understanding renewable resources for energy, conversion of these resources to renewable elec- tricity and fuels, and the use of renewable electricity and fuels in homes, commercial buildings, and vehicles. NREL’s R&D areas of expertise are renewable electricity, renewable fuels, integrated energy system engineering and testing, strategic energy analysis, and technology transfer. It is home to the National Center for Photovoltaics, the National Bioenergy Center, and the National Wind Technology Center. Cover photo credit: Straight road in rural landscape © iStockphoto/Narvikk. © 2009 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data CIP information available on request. ISBN 978-0-89206-542-4 The CSIS Press Center for Strategic and International Studies 1800 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 Tel: (202) 775-3119 Fax: (202) 775-3199 Web: www.csis.org 2 contents Acknowledgments iv Foreword by Senator Richard G. Lugar v 1. Introduction 1 2. Fuel Choices 5 3. Vehicle Technologies 29 4. Policy Outlook 37 Epilogue 41 Conference Participants 43 Glossary 45 About the Authors 49 | iii acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the help of their colleagues throughout the production of this report. For research and other support, our gratitude goes out to Kartik Akileswaran, J. Phillip Behm, Tiffany Blanchard, James Coan, Matthew Frank, Bill Gingher, Brendan Harney, Alexander Iannaccone, Dae Woo Lee, Catherine Mason, Molly Middaugh, Zack Poindexter, Rachel Posner, Brian Stevens, John Tincoff, Molly Walton, and Sarah Yates. Any errors or omissions are the re- sponsibility of the authors. The Alternative Transportation Fuels and Vehicle Technologies report and series is made pos- sible through the generous support of the Aramco Services Company, BP, and Chevron. The authors acknowledge the assistance of the following institutions in the preparation of this report and the attendant series from which this summary is drawn: U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Association of Oil Pipelines, University of California–Berkeley, Georgetown University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Iowa State University, Shell Oil, Dupont, Energy Future Coalition, Princeton Environmental Institute, Argonne National Labora- tory, Conoco Phillips, Syntroleum, General Motors Corp., Toyota Motors, National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, R.L. Banks and Associates, Inc., and the Rocky Mountain Institute. iv | foreword Senator Richard G. Lugar In a speech I gave in March of 2006, I asserted that exploding demand for energy, the vulnerability of energy supplies to terrorism and warfare, the increasing concentration of energy assets in the hands of problematic governments, the growing willingness of these governments to use energy as a geopolitical weapon, and evidence that climate change was accelerating had combined to change the energy debate fundamentally. I contended that the “balance of realism” in energy policy had shifted from proponents of a laissez-faire approach that would continue U.S. overdependence on oil to advocates of energy alternatives who recognize the urgency of achieving a major change in the way that the United States and the world produces and uses energy. In the intervening years, public awareness of our energy dilemma has greatly improved. Politi- cians understand that Americans care about issues like energy security and the need to address environmental concerns. Yet, despite this growing focus and rising prices, we have yet to commit ourselves fully to the policy steps required to achieve a sustainable future. The world needs alternatives to oil. This requires a reorientation of our transportation sector and a more diverse set of options for fuel choices. The CSIS Energy and National Security Program and Global Strategy Institute and the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) have for years pro- vided vital policy analysis, guidance, and world-class research on energy-related topics. I applaud them for collaborating to produce this valuable report. It draws needed attention to the challenges we face in transportation fuel supply and examines opportunities for solutions. The global oil market has fundamentally shifted under pressure from surging demand and tightening supply margins. Spare capacity has shrunk from as much as 10 percent just five years ago to around 3 percent. This means that relatively small oil supply losses can have dramatic effects on world prices. Small margins also make political manipulation of supplies a more potent weapon against the United States and import-dependent countries. As competition for scarce oil resources grows and the price of oil stays high, oil will be an even greater magnet for conflict. In my service in the U.S. Senate on the Foreign Relations Committee, I have seen the many ways in which energy constrains our foreign policy options, limiting effectiveness in some cases and forcing our hand in others. We pressure Sudan to stop genocide in Darfur, but we find that the Sudanese government is insulated by oil revenue and oil supply relationships. We pressure Iran to stop its uranium enrichment activities, yet key nations are hesitant to support us for fear of endan- gering their access to Iran’s oil and natural gas. We try to foster global respect for civil society and human rights, yet oil revenues flowing to authoritarian governments are often diverted to cor- rupt or repressive purposes. We fight terrorism, yet some of the hundreds of billions of dollars we spend each year on oil imports is diverted to terrorists. We give foreign assistance to lift people out of poverty, yet energy-poor countries are further impoverished by expensive energy-import bills. We seek options that would allow for military disengagement in Iraq and the wider Middle East, yet our way of life depends on a steady stream of oil from that region. | v Ending our oil import dependence will not suddenly cure poverty, end terrorism, prevent weapons proliferation, or bring peace to the Mideast. But failing to address energy guarantees that our pursuit of these foreign policy goals will be encumbered and our way of life will remain under threat. American national security will be at risk as long as we are excessively dependent on imported oil. Recently, the International Energy Agency (IEA) projected that global energy demand would increase by 45 percent by 2030. Three-quarters of this demand growth is likely to happen in the developing world, with 43 percent of it happening in China and India alone. Eighty-four percent of that demand growth is expected to come from fossil fuels, translating into nearly a 50 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions. We can debate the margin of error in any of these inter- national energy projections, but the picture they paint is a bleak one for global stability and U.S. influence. Awareness of our energy dilemma is improving. Yet, advancements in American energy security have been painfully slow, and political leadership has been defensive, rather than proac- tive. If we suffer an oil embargo, if terrorists succeed in disrupting our oil lifeline, if we slide into a military conflict because oil wealth has emboldened anti-American regimes, or if climate change is accelerated by unrestrained growth in carbon emissions, it will not matter that before disaster struck, the American public and its leaders gained a new sense of realism about our vulnerability. We need to have the discipline to understand that a modestly positive trend line in replacing oil is not enough.